Andrew Sullivan Goes There

by Pejman Yousefzadeh on February 10, 2010

[tweetmeme]

Readers of this blog will know that I am no fan of Sarah Palin’s. I don’t think that she is a bad person, and I am sure that if I met her, I would find her charming; her emotional intelligence and her ability to win over observers is quite impressive. At the end of the day, I don’t think she has what it takes to be a spokesperson for the center-right, or the GOP, and I certainly don’t think she has what it takes to be President of the United States.

Of course, this viewpoint does not go far enough for Andrew Sullivan, who titles a blog post about Palin “Tomorrow Belongs To Her, Ctd.”

Who actually believes that the choice of words in that title was an accident?

Just when you think that Sullivan can’t go any lower . . .

  • http://powip.com vermontaigne

    Extrabaggadoucheous.

  • http://newledger.com Ben Domenech

    The reality here is that Sullivan is so insane in regards to Palin-hatred that he gives pause even to those who are the farthest thing from her political supporters.

  • section9

    Pej, I'm a big Palin supporter, but the fact is, we agree on one thing: Sullivan must settle on a meme.

    Last week, Palin was Evita come back from the dead. This week it's Palinjugend?

    Jesus wept!

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/4SZNTV3MEY2RHUML7TOB7J52SQ John

    “I don’t think that she is a bad person, and I am sure that if I met her, I would find her charming; her emotional intelligence and her ability to win over observers is quite impressive.”

    That sentence seems particularly patronizing and sexist.

    Does Barack Obama have what it takes to be President of the United States? If so, why? What does he have that Sarah Palin doesn't?

  • Pejman_Yousefzadeh

    It is patronizing and sexist to say that Sarah Palin has good emotional intelligence, and charisma, and that she is, as a consequence, a very good campaigner? I mean, what? Was it “patronizing and sexist” to say the same things about Reagan, or Clinton, or Obama?

    Really, this is an unbelievably tendentious defense of Palin. As for the incumbent President, I don't think that Obama has what it takes to do his job well, as I believe that he will implement very deleterious and damaging policies. His shortcomings are different from Palin's, though they are no less worrisome.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/4SZNTV3MEY2RHUML7TOB7J52SQ John

    I'm pretty sure you know what rhetorical sleight of hand to which I'm referring (generally speaking, women tend to be more emotionally intelligent than men, so it seemed to me that you were saying she was dumb, except in the way any woman would normally [and, again, generally speaking] have an advantage) but your faux outrage is amusing. In addition, do please note that I didn't actually defend Palin or intend to be tendentious, I only gave my impression of a sentence that happened to refer to her. You may have incorrectly (or inadequately) signified your intent or I may have interpreted your intent incorrectly. If I'm in the wrong, you need only inform me of my misstep.

    Also, you didn't exactly answer my last two questions, but I concede there may not be sufficient space in a comment section to adequately do so.

  • Pejman_Yousefzadeh

    Emotional intelligence was identified by Howard Gardner as being one of the more important aspects of g, so I'm not sure how saying that someone is emotionally intelligent equates saying that they are dumb. You accused me of being “patronizing and sexist.” I was less outraged by that than puzzled, but isn't it “patronizing and sexist” to state that “generally speaking, women tend to be more emotionally intelligent than men”?

    As for the last two questions, I believe that I answered the first by saying that I do not believe that Obama has what it takes to be President. Answering the second question would therefore be unnecessary, would it not? That having been written, if you want me to compare Governor Palin with another President–one I believe most certainly had the qualities to do the job, and did the job exceedingly well–I am happy to sign on in agreement with this analysis.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/4SZNTV3MEY2RHUML7TOB7J52SQ John

    I'm pretty sure you know what rhetorical sleight of hand to which I'm referring (generally speaking, women tend to be more emotionally intelligent than men, so it seemed to me that you were saying she was dumb, except in the way any woman would normally [and, again, generally speaking] have an advantage) but your faux outrage is amusing. In addition, do please note that I didn't actually defend Palin or intend to be tendentious, I only gave my impression of a sentence that happened to refer to her. You may have incorrectly (or inadequately) signified your intent or I may have interpreted your intent incorrectly. If I'm in the wrong, you need only inform me of my misstep.

    Also, you didn't exactly answer my last two questions, but I concede there may not be sufficient space in a comment section to adequately do so.

  • Pejman_Yousefzadeh

    Emotional intelligence was identified by Howard Gardner as being one of the more important aspects of g, so I'm not sure how saying that someone is emotionally intelligent equates saying that they are dumb. You accused me of being “patronizing and sexist.” I was less outraged by that than puzzled, but isn't it “patronizing and sexist” to state that “generally speaking, women tend to be more emotionally intelligent than men”?

    As for the last two questions, I believe that I answered the first by saying that I do not believe that Obama has what it takes to be President. Answering the second question would therefore be unnecessary, would it not? That having been written, if you want me to compare Governor Palin with another President–one I believe most certainly had the qualities to do the job, and did the job exceedingly well–I am happy to sign on in agreement with this analysis.

Previous post:

Next post: